I've provided a rebuttal to Mr Lomborg's fossil fuel propaganda. He cherry-picks scenarios, obscures the fact that clean energy is cheaper across much of Africa, and that particularly for the rural poor, renewable energy is much more accessible and affordable due both to the increasingly cheap nature of clean energy, and the expensive costs associated with extending a centralized fossil fuel grid: http://thoughtleader.co.za/alexlenferna/2016/02/05/why-africa-doesnt-need-bjorn-lomborgs-fossil-fuel-pr/

According to Mr. Lomborg: "...
the “African Century” – in which Africa’s governments and donors invest an extra $450 billion in energy. ..."
African countries are now independent for more than 50 years. Do they still need donors? Why? They are extremely rich in minerals etc. South-East Asian countries are also more than 50 years independent. After decades of war they are far ahead of African countries. meaning that the African policy is wrong, dead wrong. Lomborg also takes India and China as examples in his tekst. Well, those 2 countries focused on family planning and a stop in population growth. Mr. Lomborg, economy is more complex than energy statistics. It's about people and Michael E. Porter wrote about it: Competitive advantage of Nations . A book showing why economies really grow.

South Africa, currently the only African country with nuclear power (2 GWe), is actively planning to develop 9.6 GWe by 2030. Kenya projects bringing 1GW of nuclear power on line by 2025, rising to 4GW by 2033. Nigeria It plans 1 to 2 GW of nuclear capacity as well. Nuclear is possible mainly in the richer African countries because of the high initial investment.

Shale gas (obtained by hydraulic fracturing) is also possible in South Africa and Algeria (limited only by political factors), and likely many other African countries if exploration is allowed. Natural gas is of course preferable to heavier hydrocarbon sources such as oil or coal in terms of carbon efficiency.

Since before the UNFCC COP's in Copenhagen this Danish Gentleman has been coming out which his reactionary positivism against the realities of climate change and the social and production changes that are necessary to avoid climate disasters on a much greater level that effect certain continents first. Africa being number 1. As I understood it the Project Syndicate was a progressive and positive-looking news network. I really wonder why you let Mr. Lomborg have a voice on your network. he is very reactionary and (in my opinion as a scientist focused on climate) quite a dangerous voice to propagate o any new service.

You use "reactionary" and "progressive" as meaning what you do and do not like to hear. That makes little sense. What this article argues is that that the "dogma" of renewable has enormous negative consequences and that another path can be chosen, a more humane one where, at the cost of a minor increase in CO2 we can uplift billions of fellow human beings as well as reduce deforestation. How such an option can be seen as "reactionary" is mystifying to me.

"which countries are allowed to industrialize." - Africa is under such a mess from western civilizations for a long time...it happens and a new age will come few hundreds years from now for them....just watch...

This article, and particularly comments below, graphically illustrate potentially tragic consequences of corrupting science to suit political objectives. For actual science, the part based on observations, is by now unequivocal. There is no appreciable global warming caused by fossil fuels. Even if there is a little bit of warming, whatever signal there may be is swamped by natural variability. Global warming has been from the beginning a political project wrapped in a pseudoscientific garb. Starting with Margaret Thatcher who used this idea to fight coal miner's unions, and then (in a suitable historical irony) taken over by the extreme left as a tool in their anti-capitalist agenda. Even though Mr Lomborg finally seems to understand the perils of this agenda, he still feels obliged to give it an obligatory salute. To make matters worse, a significant part of so called elites bought into the same agenda. Whether they really believe it, or treat it as an opportunity for political escapism and self-promotion is something best left to future historians. Al Gore surely self-enriched, if not self-promoted using this bandwagon.
The actual climate threat, if there is one, is global cooling, not global warming. Our sun has been growing inactive lately, which in the past correlated with cooling periods. We have better agriculture now, but a lot, and I mean a lot more mouths to feed. If we returned to little ice age conditions millions may starve, if we returned to glacial conditions billions may die and the global civilization as we know it may simply end. So, if more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could bias the atmosphere towards warmer, this could only be for the better. Not to mention that more carbon dioxide brings terrestrial plants closer to optimum growth conditions.
The real problems that need resolved is want. Reducing poverty on the planet of seven billion people. A simple math exercise demonstrates that we cannot bring 7 billion people to western living standards using fossil fuels alone, as there is not enough to go around. Current "glut" is part of a commodity cycle coupled with economic paralysis brought about by excessive debt, not genuine overabundance. we need every available source of industrial energy and do not have the luxury of throwing anything away because of imagined harms. In this context, the Paris Climate Summit will be once seen as a Marie Antoinnette moment of the developed world. Let them eat cake, say the elites, we are having too much fun with our pretend governance.

It always amazes me that some people continue to argue the absence of climate change caused by humans, in spite of truckloads of scientific argument to the contrary. Do they only read articles that confirm their already establshed beliefs? Do they read at all?
Regarding Lomberg's argument it seems to me he is plainly wrong. Coal is NOT the only fuel that can power up the African continent. Nuclear power is a real and clean alternative.
On the other hand it is unlikely that solar and wind power will be provided in such quantity that it will do away with the need for large generators which would have to run on carbon or nuclear fuels.
Lomberg's often stated argument that "alternative "power costs more and thus will not be used is equally spurious. It is clear that many people and some governments are willing to pay a premium for clean energy. Just a matter of polical will, which is often lacking.

This does not give any cause for concern then M Lomborg? As a statistic it is just glossed over. Before you worry about the fuel for cooking I would worry about the food in the pot, because I dont think anybody really thinks food production is going to keep up expanding at that rate somehow

Wherever you turn with a developing nation they claim the right to burn-baby-burn fossil fuels and also unbelieveably ask for subsidy to do it. 'We will just go ahead' is the mentality. Ignore population consequences, ignore food production issues, ignore pollution outcomes. Essentially the developing nation wants to be more and more like the West when the West has to become less like the West

Mr Lomborg sounds like a weather forecaster who thinks everyday is a sunny day and it will never rain

Economics prosperity is a great way to limit population growth as well as expand food supply (using less land). Africa needs both. In fact african agriculture is incredible inefficient compared to the rest of the world, so one it starts getting access to energy, we can unleash the incredible potential there.

Also, he isnt ignoring pollution, as he points of, indoor polution kills 1.3 million people per year. People who can be saved.

Mr. Lomborg is one of the new generation of propagandists which began in the days of the tobacco companies who wanted to preserve their business model in the face of growing awareness that smoking causes cancer. The very title of his book, "Skeptical Environmentalist" is an echo of the blistering documentary, "Merchants of Doubt." In this new generation, it is not necessary to deny the reality of climate change. It is only necessary to delay action, to reap billions in revenue on investments in fossil fuel reserves.

Lomborg's new twist is to pretend that the world's poorest will benefit from continued carbon pollution. But of course his analysis ignores all issues of the limited political power or the poorest in any continent. The benefits of rapid development will go to the elites of all these exploitative countries, not to those truly in need.

Readers who are interested in a balanced view of development which honestly addresses the needs of the poor should look up Amartya Sen's "Development as Freedom."

Mr Lomberg is like a stuck record and a very slippery record at that. He plays on two beguiling stories - the first that climate change is not a serious issue and the second that traditional paths to economic development are the only way to achieve healthy and meaningful lives. These are both the tales of a snake oil merchant of the highest order.

Having lived and worked in Africa, admittedly only for a few years in the 90s, I have seen both the positive potential of the people and the challenges associated with so-called western economic development models. I was the engineer on Eastgate - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastgate_Centre,_Harare - and know the potential to do far more development with far less energy and resources. I worked as a project manager for a community in rural Zimbabwe that developed an oasis in an arid region through creative employment, water management and renewable power - https://www.childlegacy.org/what-we-do/renewable-energy/ . Organisations like practical action - http://practicalaction.org/energy - and climate care - http://climatecare.org/tag/cookstoves/ - show how creative thinking can provide energy and improve wellbeing without negative externalities.

And does Mr Lomberg really believe that installing centralised coal-fired powered stations is a cheap alternative in a continent with the physical and political infrastructure that exists today? He is the one who is living in cloud cuckoo land, but his head is not in the sky it is in the sand.

Bjorn, thanks for this very useful analysis on Africa. I agree with its global view and conclusion. Tar Kovacs Systems is precisely answering to your last paragraph by its innovations which are considering not only cheap renewable energy, but constant and using no land. But also our innovations are providing many new industries adapted to our energy production, involving almost of the economy. This is why i'm used to say that state of art actual propositions for RE are "One shot" policies. Tar Kovacs Systems is actually starting discussions with African countries to develop a global renewable, profitable, independent economy in full green and clean.

Suppose you faced a lottery. With a small probability, say 1%, the air becomes unbreathable within 75 years, because we have destroyed the biome in the top few centimeters of the ocean. And, with 99% probability, nothing significant happens. How much would you pay, in 2016 currency to buy out of this lottery? What is the value to you, in monetary terms, of your descendants being able to breathe?

Of course, this is a ridiculous question. It is meant to highlight the fact that your economic analysis (or ANY economic analysis) of policies to limit climate change is flawed because it does not, and cannot, account for externalities that are far more important than the effects you are quantifying.

We are currently facing a handful of real-life lotteries that are roughly comparable to the example above. In addition to the threat to the ocean biome, these include the "clathrate gun", permafrost melting, the disruption of thermo-haline circulation, and the melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

I find this argument absolutely airtight, and the flaws in the objections so blindingly obvious that I must suspect willful ignorance or malice on the part of their authors.

Hugo Penteado, must surely understand that he is committing a transparent Ad Hominem, and that his other comments are completely beside the point that Lomborg made. You can't just repeat slogans as a response to an argument, Hugo.

Cam Jennings must likewise understand that a description of an anecdote is no way to dispute the International Energy Agency projections that Lomborg cites. The IEA is also aware of these anecdotes, and many of the other local realities in Africa as well. It is on their basis that they generated their predictions.

It really bothers me that anyone can sit back accept that for Africans, two watts of (unreliable) power are enough. I for one find it outrageous and morally disgusting.

A stupid argument. Lomborg does not understand that it is impossible to lift people out of poverty in this suicidal economic model based on fossil fuels and at the same time avoid the end of life on this planet. The goal of a fossil fuels economy is not to reduce poverty, as we know now, humankind is living the worst wealth concentration in decades. NEF calculated that for each 100 dollars added to global wealth, only 20 cents reach the poor.
Lomborg was already condemned by his errors, but the whole history can be seen here: http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/.
I cannot understand why a place like Project Syndicate does not ask Lomborg to revise all the claims against him made by important scientists. Silence speaks louder than words.
But the words are there: http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/.

You are right If you believe on these numbers and ignore the lack of nationality among the richest man in the world and the way they manipulate all government decisions around the world against humankind and life on this planet. 62 richest men today has the same of half of humankind, New Economics foundation shows how for each 100 dollars added to wealth, only 20 cents reach the poor, other surveys. What we have in reality is a social deterioration not only in poor countries but in richer nations. The idea that richer is better is almost impossible to be proved everywhere. Even in US, the richest nation of the world, the situation is worrissome. Read the book Our Kids. To have a glimpse of what is goin on. Reality around us, not only increasing wars and refugees, speaks louder than fake numbers invented to defend an ideology that it is not working anywhere anymore.

Hugo, actually world income inequality has been falling since 2000 (although it has been advancing in some places on a country basis). This is mainly due to the reduction of poverty and growing middle class of China, which of course is burning huge amounts of coal to power manufacturing.

Bjørn Lomborg presents a strong argument for Africa to adopt renewable energy and I agree with the overall idea of reducing CO2 emissions. In 2012 whilst working in Africa I was impressed by the local chief from a remote village in the Zambezi Valley who had found the funding to install solar panels that provided the electricity for lighting, refrigeration and water pumps for the village. Tanzania is making the attempt to introduce solar power and reduce deforestation and one can only hope that other African countries will also adopt this energy source. The problems have been identified and there are solutions that are available. The only thing that is required is the funding.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.